So do you need to throw at least 300 feet to properly utilize a speed 11, or 350ft for a speed 12, etc? Is there a chart or general rule of thumb that can be used to help clarify which discs would suit someone the best?

Joe's Flight Chart is definitely what you're looking for. In addition to that, if you haven't already checked out the Choosing the Right Golf Disc article on the main page it can be enlightening. It's a little outdated as far as the particular molds discussed but it contains valuable information concerning different classes of discs.

By the way, don't worry about asking questions. You are asking the right ones I think.

I have read through that article. I always wondered if innova actually had a chart or something, like in order to throw a speed 12, you need to consistently throw 400 feet or something of that nature, but it appears that they are more grouped into classes as opposed to specific speed ratings vs distances.

taylor714 wrote:I have read through that article. I always wondered if innova actually had a chart or something, like in order to throw a speed 12, you need to consistently throw 400 feet or something of that nature, but it appears that they are more grouped into classes as opposed to specific speed ratings vs distances.

I don't think it would ever be innova's best interest to put out something like that. They sell way too many wide-rimmed drivers to people that aren't capable of using them correctly (myself included). If a driver came with a label saying "don't buy me unless you can throw 450 ft", it would likely cut down on sales from rec players.

well i do remember that innova used to put feet markers on their downloadable PDF "driver selection charts".....yeah if you click on the download button on the left side of the innova site you'll see it.....i think they still have the 2008 up there.....and at the bottom it has the distance markers......they used to do this for all discs.....and it also has the supposed natural flight path of each disc......but they all max out at 400 ft......but still interesting

each disc speed rating roughly corresponds to a speed range. exactly what that speed range is depends on the nose down. more nose down = less speed is needed to generate intended flight path X.

as a rule of thumb, to "work" the disc you need to be able to exceed the upper bound of the speed range. if the disc falls below the lower bound of the speed range (given the nose angle) it will begin to fade. this is why OAT happens when players throw discs that are too fast for them. they don't generate enough speed to get the disc to turn naturally and if they don't turn the disc it fades off too much, too early.

you can somewhat offset speed requirement with stability, but there's a term for fast discs that can be thrown for players who don't have enough power... and that term is squirrely.

consistent distance and control is yielded when players are able to generate speeds beyond the upper bound of the disc's cruising speed range. there are some cases where discs have an incredibly high upper bound and a significantly lower lower bound (teebird, roc, wizard come to mind here) and for these discs it's more a matter of being able to go well beyond the lower bound.

i find it's easier to gauge average driving distance than it is to gauge actual flight speeds (although many of my approximations on actual speed are fairly accurate). i've used this to approximate minimum distances needed to get consistent distance from a disc (although this doesn't necessarily reflect "workable" power levels). basically, the ability to turn a disc over from a pured flat throw is the minimum measure that a disc is a good choice imo (with a few exceptions).

the "ideal" is something you can throw pure that will turn on a flat throw and fly straight with some hyzer on it.

there's only a handful of drivers that are anomolies in that they are fairly straight but need power in the 400'+ range to see any turn. the Teebird (480'+ range), Starfire-X (430-460' range), X2 (460'+ range) would make that list.

Blake_T wrote:each disc speed rating roughly corresponds to a speed range. exactly what that speed range is depends on the nose down. more nose down = less speed is needed to generate intended flight path X.

as a rule of thumb, to "work" the disc you need to be able to exceed the upper bound of the speed range. if the disc falls below the lower bound of the speed range (given the nose angle) it will begin to fade. this is why OAT happens when players throw discs that are too fast for them. they don't generate enough speed to get the disc to turn naturally and if they don't turn the disc it fades off too much, too early.

you can somewhat offset speed requirement with stability, but there's a term for fast discs that can be thrown for players who don't have enough power... and that term is squirrely.

consistent distance and control is yielded when players are able to generate speeds beyond the upper bound of the disc's cruising speed range. there are some cases where discs have an incredibly high upper bound and a significantly lower lower bound (teebird, roc, wizard come to mind here) and for these discs it's more a matter of being able to go well beyond the lower bound.

i find it's easier to gauge average driving distance than it is to gauge actual flight speeds (although many of my approximations on actual speed are fairly accurate). i've used this to approximate minimum distances needed to get consistent distance from a disc (although this doesn't necessarily reflect "workable" power levels). basically, the ability to turn a disc over from a pured flat throw is the minimum measure that a disc is a good choice imo (with a few exceptions).

the "ideal" is something you can throw pure that will turn on a flat throw and fly straight with some hyzer on it.

there's only a handful of drivers that are anomolies in that they are fairly straight but need power in the 400'+ range to see any turn. the Teebird (480'+ range), Starfire-X (430-460' range), X2 (460'+ range) would make that list.

I need a smaller version of this to print out and stick on the foreheads of some people i've been having disagreements with about this subject.

How is the viking and what would be a more stable counterpart? I have never thrown one, but this interests me. I was looking at the innova chart and it has the FL at the same speed but more stable which leads me to ask how is the fl?

rusch_bag wrote:How is the viking and what would be a more stable counterpart? I have never thrown one, but this interests me. I was looking at the innova chart and it has the FL at the same speed but more stable which leads me to ask how is the fl?

I'd say the X Avenger is one of the closer disc to a more stable Viking. I like discs around that speed for distance drivers and the Avenger in X starts off on the overstable side and beats in well and is a great moderatly overstable driver in Z.